FRYEBURG BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting - June 29, 2010

Meeting called to order at 6:30

Board members present: Virginia Howe, Kimberly Clarke, Greg Huemmler, Angelo Milia and James St. Pierre

Members review minutes form 6/1/2010 meeting

Members review letters from abutters to Harriman appeal and from their lawyer, Matthew Dyer, which requests a continuance so he can make himself familiar with the case

Milia  asks the Harrimans if they've engaged the services of the lawyer mentioned in the letter. They state they have. 

A motion to accept minutes from the Appeals Board meeting dating from June 1 made by Milia and seconded by Clarke. Unanimously accepted. 

Milia discusses letter from lawyer (Dyer) and addresses Harrimans about the appeal. Motion made for a continuance of the Harriman appeal. Unanimously passed. Rescheduled for July 20th at 6:30pm. 

Milia asks for Kackley to present the history of his appeal. Kackley explains the original plans to place the tower and the changes to the new one. He says the new one is more obtrusive, obnoxious, has a light, makes a noise that is above the sound ordinance of the town. He says the generator runs at 62 decibels where 60 is the limit. He found that when the tower was moved the owners did not apply for a site change amendment. 

He adds that one of the planning board members has a family member who rents to the company. 

A lawyer for SBA towers(John Springer) addresses the board (draws a map). He explains the changes made to the tower. Claims both towers are same height. New tower has no guidewires which makes it less nonconforming as they were granted a nonconforming waiver to their setback. 

Milia asks CEO about the building permit which says "Replace Tower."

Springer adds that the noise level doesn't violate the town code.  He also claimed that property value has not diminished. 

Howe asks about role Springer takes since as he is not licensed in  Maine . He claims to be essentially a spokesman.  

Clarke asks about the generator on the first tower. Springer says it did indeed have one, Kackley claims it was a different set-up. 

Kackely asks about the need to make a new structure conforming when constructed, regardless of when it whether its predecessor was granted a nonconformity waiver.

Huemmler raises the question of the fans on the tower and the light on the tower. Lawyer for SPA says that plans to adjust these as per the requirements outlined by the Planning Board will be addressed. 

Huemmler also asks about how the plot the tower is on is owned by Shaffner and how it is leased and that the value is assessed at $0 and the building is assessed at $120,000. 

Shaffner explains how he owns the land and leases it out. 

CEO explains how when land is leased, the structure can be taxed separately from the land. 

Milia asks Kackley what he would like to happen.

Kackley explains how everything about the tower has gotten worse: noise, light, sight, destruction of road they used to travel on. He maintains the road the trucks used and says they don't want to maintain the road. The lawyer objects. Kackley would like the tower to be taken down and rebuilt with the correct setbacks. 

St. Pierre asks Kackley where the planning board was in error. Kackley claims the board gave a waiver to setbacks that it shouldn't have. 

Lucy (a member of the planning board present) replies that this is a difficult issue. He says the planning board had to act on an amendment to an application. He claims that the amendment passed all criteria. The only non-conformity, which was not involved in the amendment, related to the the height. He claims they dealt with the facts and that they required a noise buffer. 

Huemmler asks Kackley about the performance standards that haven't been met in terms of the glare and the noise. He points out that the noise from the fans hasn't been tested. So, the conditions of that amendment haven't been met. 

Milia asks for motions from board members. Milia claims there are no issues concerning the lights and the sounds. The lawyer claims that Kackley broke agreements so they are now unwilling to continue talking. 

Milia motions to deny Mr. Kackley's application to withdraw the Planning Board's approval of the amendment based on administrative procedure: 2 for (St. Pierre and Milia) and two against (Huemmler and Howe). Clark abstains. 

Tie vote fails. The petition was denied.

The meeting adjourns 7:15.